D&D 5E How should multiclassing be handled in 5E?

[UngainlyTitan]

I'd like to be able to start with a character who survives by his wits and staying out of danger (rogue), who realizes he needs a little bit of swordsmanship to handle a nemesis of his (fighter), then decides to learn several different varieties of magic so he can heal his allies (cleric), teleport short distances (wizard), and speak to animals (druid).

This and RangerWickets other posts in this thread reflect my views on multiclassing more or less completly.
The only hting I feel like adding is that I do not want a multiclassed character to be less capable than the other party memebers that have not multiclassed.
A wizard5/fighter5 in 3.x had no business hanging around with either a Wiz10 or a Ftr 10. Now with bounded accuracy this should be less of a problem in Next.

 

[airwalkrr]

Dead levels need to go away, otherwise multiclassing is going to be a hard sell.

 

[Li Shenron]

IMHO, no.

A 15th level fighter who takes a level of Wiz should be nor better or worse at spellcasting than a 1st level Wizard, and vice versa. In this sense, a level system should function like a skills-based system.

I am of the same opinion. I'd rather want that 1st level spellcasting to be still useful at 16th level. It doesn't have to be that all 1st level spells must still be useful at level 16, nor that those who are still useful must be as useful as the top-level spells of a 16th level Wizard. Just still useful enough not to be ignored. Anyway the 16th level Wizard is still going to have cantrips, so even cantrips should have a place in the game at 16th level.

 

[steeldragons]

Mostly 1e style with tweaks.

Separate XP tracking (can be different levels in each class).
- HP is the HD of each class, divided by 2.
- 1 of the classes must be a base class: Cleric, Fighter, Rogue or Mage.
- Multi classing is determined at character creation. NO tacking classes on later. NO "dipping cuz I want all the bells n' whistles and none of the work/trouble". Rocks fall, 3e style multi-classing dies...forever.
- Not all classes can be multi-classed (No druids, paladins, barbarians, probably others...warlocks...etc...)
- 2 class limit. Period.

Since that'll never happen...To the question of the 14th level fighter "taking a level in wizard."

Yes, obviously, he casts as a 1st level wizard.

Not a 5th level wizard.

NOT a 15th level caster (are you INSANE?! How does that make sense?!?!).

You've spent your adventuring "career" wearing armor and swinging a sword. Now, you pick up a book and decide you want to start learning some magic...so go for it. START to LEARN...from scratch...like every other wizard. Not "Ooo, I'm so powerful I just picked up this spellbook and lookit I can do...FIREBALL! Cool, huh?" Absolutely NO sense to that AT ALL.

 

[Li Shenron]

I might agree with your second statement (although I suspect I might mean something different by a skills-based system), but probably do not with your first. If all that 15th level character does is fight just like a 14th level one and cast spells just like a 1st level one, this multiclassing is useless, since the gain in versatility is far outweighed by the loss in effectiveness, given that the party will probably be facing 15th-level adversaries, who will most likely shrug off first level spellcasting and dominate against a lower-level fighter.

I really disagree with this kind of argument. First of all, that "the gain in versatility is far outweighted by the loss in effectiveness" is just an assumption, because it all depends on what exactly that level is Wizard is granting, and what the (missed) level in Fighter would have granted. In the 3e system you may be right, because a missed level in Fighter can mean 1 point of BAB lost, and even worse a missed level in Wizard can mean 1/2 spellcasting levels lost. But that happens in that system, and does not have to happen in all system. All the point is that we should have a system capable of making the two choices equally good, or as close as possible. The bounded accuracy of 5e already gives a somewhat better starting point for this compared to 3e.

Second, if it's really impossible to make them equally good at combat once the core principles of the game (such as attack bonus advancement rates or spellcasting levels) are set, even then it doesn't mean that this multiclassing will be useless, only that it will be subpar and only in combat. You don't want to lose even a 5% effectiveness in combat? Don't multiclass, or at least don't multiclass with this specific combination, but the combination may be well worth its price in someone else's game where combat is just one pillar and not the pillar. If 1st level spells are well designed, taking one level of Wizard might mean to add 3-4 good capabilities to the whole group: it depends on a lot of variable of course, if you already have a full Wizard who knows all spells (or covers all spells types at least) taking a Wizard level is probably adding nothing to the party. But if you don't already have that, or you have a Wizard who only blasts area damage spells, adding to the party even something as simple as telekinesis, light, and minor illusions can unlock new tactics. If you only have a combat game, then of course not so much...

 

[RangerWickett]

Mostly 1e style with tweaks.
- Multi classing is determined at character creation. NO tacking classes on later. NO "dipping cuz I want all the bells n' whistles and none of the work/trouble". Rocks fall, 3e style multi-classing dies...forever.
- Not all classes can be multi-classed (No druids, paladins, barbarians, probably others...warlocks...etc...)
- 2 class limit. Period.

Yeaaaah, not to my liking at all. There are people in the real world who are good at kung-fu (monk), wilderness survival (ranger), computer use (wizard), and public relations (bard). It should be possible in an RPG too.

Yes, obviously, he casts as a 1st level wizard.

Not a 5th level wizard.

NOT a 15th level caster (are you INSANE?! How does that make sense?!?!).

You've spent your adventuring "career" wearing armor and swinging a sword. Now, you pick up a book and decide you want to start learning some magic...so go for it. START to LEARN...from scratch...like every other wizard. Not "Ooo, I'm so powerful I just picked up this spellbook and lookit I can do...FIREBALL! Cool, huh?" Absolutely NO sense to that AT ALL.

He's wielded magic weapons for years, watched his buddy cast spells hundreds of times, seen enemy wizards use magic, and has consumed gallons of healing potions that have probably laced his internal organs with magical cholesterol. This dude knows magic. He'll pick it up pretty fast if he devotes some time to it.

Now sure, maybe for you the Fighter-to-Wizard is too big a stretch. But what about a monk who knows all about focusing energy. Ryu and Ken can shoot fireballs, why not a D&D monk?

What about a cleric, who has been casting spells for years?

I mean, think of this: Imagine a 15th level wizard who never learned fireball. If he gets his hands on a spellbook with fireball in it, can he say, "Ooo, I'm so powerful I just picked up this spellbook and lookit I can do...FIREBALL! Cool, huh?"

 

[keterys]

There are people in the real world who are good at kung-fu (monk), wilderness survival (ranger), computer use (wizard), and public relations (bard). It should be possible in an RPG too.

Or you could have a Monk who is trained in Nature, Arcana, and Diplomacy.

Ryu and Ken can shoot fireballs, why not a D&D monk?

Why should they need to be a wizard to hurl a fireball?

There are many ways to reflect the ability to pick up a variety of options without invalidating the class advancement concept. What you're describing sounds like it's closest to a desire to emulate point-based systems (like GURPs and HERO).

Is there any reason it's more acceptable to have a monk/ranger/wizard/bard than it is to have a 200 character point character who has spent their points on a variety of interests? Where does the line get drawn?

 

[Ferghis]

If this was 3rd or 4th edition you would be spot on but I'm thinking with Next due to a much shallower improvement curve this could be possible. Low level spell casting is still effective at high levels. It has to be partially due to wizards and clerics getting very few high level spells. I reckon, unlike earlier editions you will still see low level spells being used frequently even at the top levels. And they don't scale with class level except for the cantrips. The same goes for martial classes to some degree. Taking a few levels and getting basic weapon training will always be useful, especially if they scale back higher level martial damage as they have suggested they will

I have tried out a couple of fighter mage builds in theory. They seem pretty balanced with straight class builds

The only hting I feel like adding is that I do not want a multiclassed character to be less capable than the other party memebers that have not multiclassed.
A wizard5/fighter5 in 3.x had no business hanging around with either a Wiz10 or a Ftr 10. Now with bounded accuracy this should be less of a problem in Next.

This makes sense, and you're both right. Bounded accuracy all but eliminates my objection to a level-1-wizard-with-14-levels-of-fighter. Dannyalcatraz's assessment is correct, with respect how dramatically disparate multiclassing is going to be viable within the bounded accuracy of Next.

I'd like to be able to start with a character who survives by his wits and staying out of danger (rogue), who realizes he needs a little bit of swordsmanship to handle a nemesis of his (fighter), then decides to learn several different varieties of magic so he can heal his allies (cleric), teleport short distances (wizard), and speak to animals (druid).

This and RangerWickets other posts in this thread reflect my views on multiclassing more or less completly.

Agreed. That's why I'd like the parts that, so far, have been baked in as class benefits, to float - at least optionally.

Dead levels need to go away, otherwise multiclassing is going to be a hard sell.

I think dead levels need to go away because they are bad design: what's the point of gaining a level if you don't gain anything significant? But I honestly hate the idea of "taking a level in another class." If you can dabble in any class you want, what's the point of having "archetype" classes anyway? Why not just build your own? I'd much rather see builds that steal a particular benefit that might belong to another class instead of taking a whole level in that other class.

 

[steeldragons]

Yeaaaah, not to my liking at all.

That's cool. What you and others here are describing is not to my liking at all as well....So we're all in the same place.

There are people in the real world who are good at kung-fu (monk), wilderness survival (ranger), computer use (wizard), and public relations (bard). It should be possible in an RPG too.

Mm. No. what you are describing is people have various skills. You can be good at all of that stuff...but ONE of them (I'm gonna guess either the computer use or the public relations) is your profession a.k.a. your Class. The rest is skills/maneuvers/feats/etc... I have no problem with that.

But anyone coming to my table with this uber great super cool character they worked out who's a Monk/Ranger/Wizaard/Bard is getting a look. Possibly a laugh. And most likely a blank piece of paper to "try again."

He's wielded magic weapons for years, watched his buddy cast spells hundreds of times, seen enemy wizards use magic, and has consumed gallons of healing potions that have probably laced his internal organs with magical cholesterol. This dude knows magic. He'll pick it up pretty fast if he devotes some time to it.

Again, mmmmmnnnope. Sounds a bit of a stretch. He's drunk a bunch of potions and now can learn magic faster than actual wizards [because he's 14th level]...This horse just won't runnin' for me.

Now sure, maybe for you the Fighter-to-Wizard is too big a stretch. But what about a monk who knows all about focusing energy. Ryu and Ken can shoot fireballs, why not a D&D monk?

Dunno who Ken is, but for the other guy, reason 1? D&D isn't a video game. Reason 2: the fluff surrounding monks and wizards is pretty well established and one is not the same as the other. I suppose you could have some kinda "ki burst" attack that does damage equivalent to a fireball...but to say, My 14th level monk casts fireball after "taking a level in wizard" just isn't gonna work for me.

What about a cleric, who has been casting spells for years?

Again, cleric magic vs. mage magic is well established. If they are taking their FIRST level in wizard...then no, they're not getting fireball.

I mean, think of this: Imagine a 15th level wizard who never learned fireball. If he gets his hands on a spellbook with fireball in it, can he say, "Ooo, I'm so powerful I just picked up this spellbook and lookit I can do...FIREBALL! Cool, huh?"

Uh...of course he can...He's a wizard. He finds it. He learns it. He casts it. It's what wizards do...not monks, not rangers, not fighters...no matter what levels they are in those classes.

Your 14th level monk or fighter can too! When they get to 5th level wizard and can use 3rd level spells. However long it takes to accumulate the XP needed for them to be a 5th level caster.

 

[darjr]

The idea for low-level spell slots in D&DN is that, at high levels, you use them for utility. For a Fighter 14, taking Wizard 1 lets you cast spells like shield, detect magic, identify, and charm person (spells that are useful at any level) twice per day. That seems pretty good, especially compared to taking the 15th level of Fighter, which gives you... nothing.

Well, doing that you've just dropped behind the rest of the party by a level. And shield at 1st level may be so small a bounus for 15th level that it'll be pointless, same with charm person and possible all the other spells.

I do agree that bounded accuracy or a flatter math will go a long way to helping solve this.